Fallujah - Sunni Triangle - Page 3

**Kyobanim** · 04-02-2004, 13:04

I like that idea.

I also like that quote.

Solid · 04-02-2004, 13:47

IMO Machiavelli's The Prince comes to mind. These types, or at least their leaders (of which I think there are many, maybe not leaders but genuine activits) are A-Class dissemblers and should be treated not with the velvet glove but with the fist inside. I do not think that arrests will do any good, it has been said before that these people only understand force, much like the Soviets.

The danger, as Bard E. O'Neill pointed out, is that in the retributionary operations there is collateral damage to 'innocent' civilians. This will often cause the cancer to spread, as opposed to isolating and destroying it.

Therefore, it seems prudent that before any operations are undertaken, a full assessment is performed on the population so that only those genuinely guilty are attacked. However, an accurate assessment may be difficult to compile. Perhaps the best option is to wait for/ trigger another riot and then use lethal force?

Solid

D9 (RIP) · 04-02-2004, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Solid
This will often cause the cancer to spread, as opposed to isolating and destroying it.

The cancer would seem to have spread already. IMO, when civilians live in an area from which they know these kinds of attacks are staged, they have a responsibility either to get busy on their own rooting out the bad guys, or they have no place to bitch when someone else does it for them.

If somebody is shooting at you from your neighbors window, then your neighbor is morally obligated to either do something about it himself, or else get the heck out of your way while you do something. If your neighbor permits this to happen, and then puts the condition on your doing something about it that requires you to take addition risks because of his unwillingness to help, then he is no longer "innocent."

This is the analog of the situation of the citizens of Fallujah. Either they need to drive out those from their midst that threaten us, or if they prefer that we do it they need to take responsibility for making sure that they are out of the area and safe. They know what's going on. They need to secure the bad guys, secure themselves, or relinquish claims to "innocence."

IMHO.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2004, 14:19

I agree. At a minimum its passive support. And you know some of them hid weapons, scouted, hid the doers after the fact.

A methodical and overwhelming response conducted by grim faced and unsympathetic professionals is called for here. But it should have been done, as Reaper said, after the initial first response, which should have been swift and violent.

Cordon the thing off, pull out the women and kids and start busting heads and caps.

ID card everybody, controlled access in and out. Declare martial law with curfews, military mayor, etc.

QRQ 30 · 04-02-2004, 14:29

I agree with most of what NDD says. We must make it known that our actions are as a result the actions of terrorists and will only cease when the terrorists cease. Then the population may be more inclined to cooperate.

On the other hand we must demonstrate our ability to protect the population. If we can't they will not come forward.

Many of the statements about passive populace can easily apply to the Cabrini Towers in Chicago, East L.A. Detroit, etc.

Isn't it easy to judge from a throne?

Footmobile · 04-02-2004, 14:32

I think this might have been the bad guys way of testing the newly arrived USMC forces and how they will handle things in the future in Fallujah.

Sadly it would appear that they now have a perception that the USMC is afraid to put the smack down like the 82nd had been doing prior to their arrival.

Sets a terrible precedent for the Marines in the area IMO.

D9 (RIP) · 04-02-2004, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Footmobile
Sets a terrible precedent for the Marines in the area IMO.

Concur.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2004, 14:40

I don't know so much about that. But then I'm not over there. How would it look if they went running in there and lost a Battalion in an ambush? How would it look if we pulled out because of losing a Battalion?

D9 (RIP) · 04-02-2004, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't know so much about that. But then I'm not over there. How would it look if they went running in there and lost a Battalion in an ambush? How would it look if we pulled out because of losing a Battalion?

I would be extremely disappointed in my boys if they went into Fallujah with a regiment of Marines supported by armor, arty, and air, and lost a battalion to those goons. I think the Marines could do alright against these clowns.

I think a greater danger is how emboldened the citizens of Fallujah become as each day passes without their being held accountable for their actions. I would imagine that the instigators of the attack are making full use of this time to plan, prepare, recruit, and propagandize the citizenry to the effect that America does not dare enter Fallujah. If I were the G-Chief, I would be taking full advantage of it.

Having said all that, obviously (and unfortunately IMO) I'm not over there either, so all of the above is based only on what I have gleaned from the news and from those I've spoken with who have experience in Fallujah and the surrounding areas.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2004, 14:53

I like Reaper's idea as a first response. AC 130 and Little Bird runs over the crisis site. Bust it up, then get the bodies back.

Then go in methodically and bust heads.

I'm sure the USMC could do all right against the goons as well. But underestimating your enemy is a cardinal sin.

D9 (RIP) · 04-02-2004, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I like Reaper's idea as a first response. AC 130 and Little Bird runs over the crisis site. Bust it up, then get the bodies back.

Then go in methodically and bust heads.

I'm sure the USMC could do all right against the goons as well. But underestimating your enemy is a cardinal sin.

At least for my part, that's what I am talking about. The fact that we didn't react that way while the Marines were on duty - especially with their much ballyhooed "hearts and minds" strategy

- hurts their credibility IMO.

Send in air and arty to level those mobs, send in the Marines to get the body's back and break something off of ayone left in the street. Our failure to do so was a mistake, IMHO.

I have a question for the UW experts: If you are dealing with an insurgency and the enemy scores a dramatic victory against you - even if by dramatic it is only for propaganda value - is there some maxim that it is best to strike back quickly to minimize time he can take advantage of the propaganda? It would seem to me that when dealing with an insurgency who depends on the civilian population for support, recruits, etc., it would be very important to maintain the impression in the population that the insurgency was doomed. Reason I ask is that I see this as the same type of situation. The insurgents are surely milking this dramatic attack, and the impunity with which they have carried it off thusfar, for all it is worth.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2004, 15:15

No, no maxim that I can remember. The govs that have done the best IMO, have in fact done what the Jarhead General is doing. Steady, calm, dispassionate and staying the course.

Our first reaction (to turn it into a parking lot) is actually probably exactly what they were hoping for. Escalation to repressive measures to turn the populace against us and for them.

If you're going to do that, the measures have to be so repressive as to wipe out the insurgents. IMO, they have studied us and think they know what has worked in the past. The Mog Strategy if you will. I hope they are underestimating POTUS' resolve. If he gets re-elected, they are screwed IMO. The Mog thing seems to be their one Grand Strategy. It worked against Spain, Russia in Chechnya (albeit for short terms) and has worked against us in Mog and Vietnam and Beruit before that. Its all about political will and staying power and they know that. They learned it from Vietnam, applied it against the Soviets in 'Stan, and it has been continually re-enforced against Islamic terrorists. Its actually a good strategy for them from their POV, unless you have a determined POTUS, then all you have to do is wait until he leaves.

Make no mistake about it, the things done to the bodies were designed for one thing - to increase opposition to the presence by using TV and the internet to bring it into people's living rooms.

I am old enough (barely) to remember Cronkite's nightly casualty lists from Vietnam. i see a lot of the same types of things now, especially on the internet.

We need to be prepared to either stay and fight this shit for the next 10 years (Brits in Malaya) or pull completely out and never go back. And if we're going to stay, we need to be prepared to get Medieval on their ass and take some casualties. They may be goons, but they're not messing around.

I also think it may be a mistake to learn to many lessons from the Israelis. They don't have the best track record in dealing with these people and the ones I have met are not, in all honesty, all that hot. I certainly think our troops are a cut above, especially now with two years of combat under their belts.

D9 (RIP) · 04-02-2004, 15:38

I cannot disagree with steady, calm, and dispassionate, except to say that I would have hoped the actions those words characterize to have been more forceful, deliberate, and based more on our interests.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2004, 15:41

Well, it hasn't even begun yet, has it? There's still hope.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-02-2004, 15:45

Its been 48, should we move the thread to terrorism?